Re: [TruthTalk] Spirit

[Debbie Sawczak]

David: here is a response--and maybe a bulkier one than you would've liked, sorry!--to your three questions to me about spirit. For anyone not into the topic: feel free to ignore.   1) Yes, I agree without hesitation that there is such a thing as spirit. There are beings who are not material. But my answer would be less ready if you are asking whether I believe in a "part" of a human being which is the spirit, distinct from other "parts", separated at death. My thinking on this is in flux, but I am currently considering a No. I take no support for its existence from the passage in Revelation 6, given that this is a vision containing plenty of symbolic imagery. As for God breathing into Adam at creation, this doesn't prove anything about the separate existence of a spirit. Nor do I think parables such as the one about Lazarus and the rich man are good foundation for this sort of thing, as it is likely that Jesus drew on familiar conventional ideas in which to couch his main point, whether those ideas were accurate or not. And I think it is possible to read other biblical references to a person's spirit without having to posit a distinct entity. "The spirit returns to God who gave it" could easily be understood as just referring to life, the power of being alive, rather than as a substantive thing. (If you interpret it as the latter, note that the generality of the statement obliges you to reckon with all human spirits going to be with God at death.) I believe humans are unique among all earthly creatures in various important ways, including their capacity for personal and intimate relationship with God who is transcendent and nonmaterial, but I don't think that necessarily entails an extra "part" called a spirit. Spirit could also just be the name for that capacity or for that aspect of our existence. And of course such a relationship integrally involves our whole being anyway, including the physical.   When a person dies, in this view, she is thoroughly dead until the resurrection. I remember long ago when my brother died, his Christian Reformed pastor said at the graveside, "The next thing David will hear is the sound of the archangel's trumpet!" This was a surprise at the time, from an evangelical preacher, but not objectionable. It doesn't conflict with "absent from the body--present with the Lord" (always accompanied by a snap of the fingers by Sunday School teachers), because that is how it would be experienced by the person. (There is always the problem, see, of the interface between time and eternity, which I can't really get my head around, and that's OK.) When Lazarus was raised, I envision it more as a whole person being re-animated, rather than his spirit being plucked from Sheol (or heaven or wherever) and re-inserted into his body. I imagine him then sort of picking up where he left off (as opposed to experiencing the "culture shock" of returning to earthly life!).    I am not certain, though. I do wonder about the activity of Christ between his death and his resurrection, about which a little is said in Scripture, and Moses and Elijah visible at the transifguration (though I can think of different ways to understand this; the time/eternity thing enters into it again), and some other things. The idea that there IS a distinct thing called the spirit is not altogether implausible to me, but if that is true, I don't think the spirit is "extricable" from the rest of a living person in any meaningful way; i.e., it is impossible to isolate things done by the spirit. There are no "spiritual" vs "physical" acts; we can never somehow leave spirit or body out of any behaviour. The body would not be a container for the spirit, and their relationship wouldn't consist in merely "affecting" one another, but of some more fundamental interdependence. The bodiless state between death and the resurrection would then be some kind of aberration, de-struction--with the spirit no longer intact either. (It's even possible that there are body and spirit, inseparable, dying together--a sort of combination of the two views.) I guess I have a hard time thinking of a human being as an assemblage of different kinds of things, each having its own "life". A human is one kind of thing, one life. (But then, you are familiar with my revulsion for dualism generally.)   2) Your second question is part of the problem I have with the "distinct spirit" view. As soon as you regard the body and spirit as separate, you have the body being the direct product of sexual reproduction, its features determined genetically, while the spirit has to be snuck into the body at fertilization by God, who creates it specially and directly. That means you have a sinless, uncorrupted, spirit thwarted by a sinful, corrupt, diseased body, with each person's spirit undergoing its own individual Fall (or maybe resisting it in some cases?); I don't believe that reflects reality. If I take the view outlined in the first two paragraphs of (1) above, however, it obviates question (2).   3) Similarly with this question. If I don't think in terms of two distinct entities of body and spirit, I can say that we genetically inherit from our parents all kinds of traits manifesting themselves in the way we relate to God. (And that's not to say that all traits are unalterable, or that we have no choice or responsibility when it comes to what to cultivate, or that God can't heal all manner of conditions.) If you regard body and spirit as distinct entities, I don't see how you can have spirit-traits (whatever those are) inherited via physical genes. So in your case, your answer couldn't be other than No. Of course, we also acquire all kinds of attitudes and behaviours from our parents (and others) by learning, and there continues to be debate about what is inherited and what is learned. We are formed as well, cumulatively, by our tiniest experiences and choices. I don't think it's necessary to posit a spirit in order to explain the differences between twins.   I am keeping this file (along with others!) wide open. Both views leave certain things without satisfactory explanation--at least so far. I grew up with the spirit+body view and it affects the way I understand a lot of things; departing from that understanding entails a fair bit of reintegrating, and that takes some study and prayer and  "percolation time". But that shouldn't and doesn't put me off. I would like to repeat here what someone else said not long ago on TT (Bill, I think), that quite often when we contrast simple with complicated, we are really only contrasting familiar with unfamiliar--like the grammar of our mother tongue with that of another language.    I should add that "spiritual" is used in opposition to both "physical" and "carnal" (or "natural", "unspiritual", or various other terms). These oppositions shouldn't be mixed up. Some TTers who shall remain nameless mix them up fairly often. It doesn't help that some Englishes use "flesh" for the counterpart of "spirit" in both oppositions.   Debbie   P.S.: Note that, in any case, I don't believe in three distinct entities per person! (I hope there would be a good "binding agent" for the soul and spirit after death!) Occam would turn over in his grave. Not that anybody here cares about that.                ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Death > Debbie wrote: >> David, I appreciate the substance and tone of this post >> you wrote to Judy (apart from whether or not I happen >> to have the same opinion about spiritual inheritance). > > Thank you for the kind words, Debbie, but now my curiosity is piqued.  Do > you have a system of understanding spiritual inheritance?  If so, please > discuss it with us.  Address the following points: > > 1.  Is there such a thing as spirit?  My answer would be yes. > > 2.  Where does the spirit come from?  Is it inherited, something passed down > from Adam?  My answer would be no.  God creates the spirit for each > individual that comes into this world at the time the individual is born. > > 3.  Are any spiritual traits of parents passed down to their children > through some kind of transferrence involving the conception of life in the > womb?  My answer would be no. > > I offer my answers above, not on any authority, but on my current > perspective which is subject to change when better information comes my way. > I look forward to hearing your perspective on this subject. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > >